GUNENDRA PRASAD SEN GUPTA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 03-05-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
\ 
GUNENDRA PRASAD SEN GUPtA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
May, 3 1983 
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL Au AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH JJ.] 
Service Jurisprdence-Seniority and Promotion to higher post-Assurance 
given to the employee that his seniority in the post" to which he was initially 
appointed o'n his retransf-er would be considered-Depanmental Pro111otion Con1-
mittee first rejecting to consider the case for e111panelli11g_for pron1otio11 for want 
of personal records and later· when available refuses to reopen the case-legality 
of the refusal Estoppel by conduct, applicability of. 
The appellant was working as a Godown-Keeper in the northern region 
of the Food Corporation of Delhi. He was transferred to the eastern region 
at his own request on March 1, 1961. Jn August 1962, the U11ion of India 
issued a circular to the effect that an officer who was transferred from one 
region to another at his own request should be treated as a fresh entrant in the 
·cadre to which he belonged in the latter region for the purpose of Seniority 
and thus th"ercby such an officer will forfeit his pa.st services. In the· Seniority 
List of 1969, the appellant's name was shown at S. No 261 but in the seniority 
list of 1972 his name was shown against St. No. 266 and as a result fout Of his 
juniors w~re promoted. The appellant's several representations against the 
said promotions having failed, he filed a wr~t petition in the Calcutta High 
Court praying for a mandainus directing the respondents either to forbear 
from giving effect to the promotions or to t~ansfer him back to Northern region 
restoring his seniority. As per the High Court's orders, the Joint P9rsonnel 
Manager of the Corporation wrote to the Zonal Manager (E) at 'Calcutta 
assuring that the seniority position of appellant in the Northern region prior to 
his tra:O.sfer to the Eastern region would be restored to him. After his retrans-
fer to the Northern region, the appellant found that s9me of his juniors had 
already been proffioted. On his representation, the Departmental Promotion 
Committee en.1panelled him in the 1976 panel and refused to empanel him from 
1970 on the ground of non-availability of service ·records. But whcri they were 
traced and produced, the Departmental Promotion Comn1ittee refused to 
empanel his name in the 1970 List with a cryptic resolution to the effect that 
"on the basis of records of his service, his case cannot be reopened". His 
representations against the said resolution having failed, the appellant filed a 
writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was dismissed in /iniine. Hence 
the appeal by Special Leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
· HELD : 1:1 th~ resolution of the Zonal Committee passed in May 
1979 stating that the case of the appellant could not be reopened has to be 
r 
... 
.. 
o.P. SEN GUPTA v. UNION CVenkataramiah J.) 
7. 
treateU as non-est and ineffective one in the eye of Jaw. The Zonal Promotion 
Committee had not considered the case of the appellant for the purpose of 
including him in the 1970 panel. The re-opening of a case arises only when ii 
has been once considered and a decision is taken thereon. [10 G-H, 11 ·A-B] 
1:2 ·The resolution passed by the Zonal Promotion Committee n1eans 
that it was not willing to reopen the case of the appellant on the basis of his 
service records. The resolution does not show that the Committee had in fact 
considered the suitability of the appellant for promotion to a hi_gher post at 
the time when his juniors were en1panelled for the purPoses of promotion. .If it 
had done so, the €on1mittee wolild have recorded in its resolution that the 
appellant had been found to be unsuitable for promotion during the relevant 
time. When his case came up before the Cominittee for the first time in 
December 5, 1977, it deferred the consideration of his case on the ground that 
the relevant Confidential Reports were not available. Having thus deferred· 
the consideration of the case of the appellant on that occasion, the Zonal 
Pron1otion Committee should have considered his case when the relevant 
Confidential Reports were placed before-it and passed an appropriate resolution 
instead of re1narking that his case could not be reopened. [10 C G] 
A 
B 
c 
C1vn. APPELLATE JURSIDlCTJON : ·civil Appeal No. 4061 of 
D 
( 
1983 
Appeal by Special leave from the· Judgment 'and Order dated 
the 11th March, 1981 of the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No 371 of 
1981. 
A. Gang

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.